Use of Sneak Attack while Raging?

[IceBear]

LOL




WotC actually made it a rule. Cool beans!

Well, I think it was Skip or Sean, so I don't know how offical that is, but like everything else, I defer to them when it comes to what they "intended"

IceBear

 

[hammymchamham]

Not allowing sneak attacks when raging makes me want to call Fluffy

(image snipped)

IceBear

Sorry - I'm in love with my new smilie

hahaha great emote

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

As seen in Korymir's post

Since the Barbarian can't use Move Silently or Expertise (and feats the require Expertise)

Even though a raging barbarian loses the use of Expertise, he does not lose the use of feats with Expertise as a Prereq. (Including Improved Trip and Knockdown, two feats that Barbarians can use exceptionally well.)

 

[jontherev]

I wouldn't use the Sage's reply (in THIS case) to determine how to rule. The reason is that I received an email reply from him that said you can not sneak attack while raging. Someone else (in a past thread) posted an email reply with the exact opposite answer. So, there you go...

 

[kreynolds]

The reason is that I received an email reply from him that said you can not sneak attack while raging. Someone else (in a past thread) posted an email reply with the exact opposite answer.

Same reason I won't use your reply to affect my judgement about the Sage's judgement.

So, there you go...

You too. By the way, how long ago was it that you got that reply?

 

[Dingleberry]

As others have said, sneak attack depends on the condition of the target. Based on that, I picture a rogue always aiming for the vitals, but only getting in there when the defender isn't paying enough attention.

Given that, I don't think raging would eliminate that kind of training - it's just the way rogues (even multiclass ones) fight.

 

[IceBear]

I wouldn't use the Sage's reply (in THIS case) to determine how to rule. The reason is that I received an email reply from him that said you can not sneak attack while raging. Someone else (in a past thread) posted an email reply with the exact opposite answer. So, there you go...

Ah, damn Skip, as inconsistent as ever I think Sean also said he would allow it, and since Sean tends to explain things better than Skip (I can appreciate how busy Skip is so I do understand why his answers tend to be short) that's what I would base it on. I'll see if I can find that anywhere or if I'm dreaming it up (not unlikely given my cheap drugs today )

Bottom line, I don't see raging as being mindless beserking. If it was mindless beserking I'd agree with no sneak attacks. I see it as more of an adrenaline boost than anything else.

IceBear

 

[Xarlen]

Bottom line, I don't see raging as being mindless beserking. If it was mindless beserking I'd agree with no sneak attacks. I see it as more of an adrenaline boost than anything else.

Or, in Undeads' case, a surge of negative energy.

 

[jontherev]

Same reason I won't use your reply to affect my judgement about the Sage's judgement.



You too. By the way, how long ago was it that you got that reply?

It was a LONG time ago. It was the first question that I ever sent him I think. I guess he changed his mind at some point. I looked for the email and couldn't find it, or I'd post it. Sorry.

 

[Stalker0]

Just remember that raging is NOT mindless beserking.
IceBear

Gee, why would I ever think that RAGE meant mindless beserking

I think WOTC could have picked a better word than rage, because honestly consider what a barbarian can do while raged, that doesn't really seem to be raging.